A Large Geographically Neutral Map Proposal

[Virtuoso]

This thread continues from a few posts in the "Sticky: What do you want to see in a map?" thread.

One of the reasons behind me suggesting a new map was about addressing the feeling I had as a newcomer to the site. Starting out, I felt it was a bit intimidating to see all the higher-ranked players filling up all the non-CE maps. When I first got here, I "exclusively" played CE because although I wanted to try new maps and play high-ranked players, I thought if I jumped into a "new" map against good players who were also particularly experienced at THOSE maps which had intricacies I didn't know about, it seemed like a lesson in certain failure. The issue, however, is that top players seemed to rarely ever join the 4p CE games I was left to, so that eliminated any chance I had to play them. I don't know if a large "neutral" map would've enticed me to join a bunch of crowns, but I think I would've been more likely to try. As it is, there are still a large number of maps I haven't tried yet. I guess part of me wants to know what I'm doing before I do.

So the idea behind this, isn't to try to eliminate the aspect of chance as much as possible (in that case, I can go play chess), but to try to reduce the game as much as possible, to decisions made based on the drop, the dice, and other people's play, and with as little consideration to geography as possible. Hence, someone with a good sense of Risk, but with little experience (imagine someone migrating from another site), can still play an effective game against a good player here on their first try. Some of you may not remember, but the first time playing on a new map is a bit intimidating. I lost an early game of 10p EM because I didn't notice a slight geographical quirk in Turkey (I would've chain killed everyone if not for this mistake, instead I gave the game away to a player after me). As it is, I think the reason why I like EM is because it is basically an open map, where a strong army on any part of the board can basically reach anywhere else without being blocked in anywhere. It means everyone is vulnerable all the time, so it keeps everyone on their toes. A large geographically neutral map would be the epitome of this. It would be the ultimate battle of strength vs strength. That said, I'm willing to concede that I don't know if anyone would enjoy playing it or not - maybe having nooks and crannies is more fun. But that's why this is a concept proposal.

I'll add to this in a few more posts.

 

[Sebrim]

I remember a 12p-game in my early days on the UK-map where I messed up, thinking I could maneuver my way out of London again.... I left the player coming after me with one troop on one tert and 5 cards, with sets at about 50. Man did I learn how to avoid getting stuck in London after that!

But that's exactly what I like about this site. There are many maps, and most players are nice fellas that are happy to help newbies out - as long as they say that they're new to the map. Losing a game because you haven't quite understood the map is part of the experience and you learn the maps all the better for it. You're obviously a 'I want to win or I don't play'-kind of guy, with 3K points after only 97 games, but for me, the experience of losing a game can be just as exciting as winning one.

If you want to test out new maps without losign points, BETA is the place for you. The games there do not count towards your points

 

[Virtuoso]

Just letting you know I'll continue this thread once I'm back to work as I'll have a desktop keyboard I'll be able to type on.

 

[Virtuoso]

So should I be posting here or in the AADOMM forum?

 

[Virtuoso]

OK - here's my thoughts on the advantages of the type of map I'm suggesting as an idea.

1. There would be options to play it in a way that other maps could not offer. For instance, if the map is exactly symmetrical about multiple axes, I imagine the site could offer an "equal" starting point for the players ("fixed drop"). So all players start with their troops in a fixed, equal arrangement around the board. Imagine playing that game in a fixed-force format? So at that point, NO luck would be involved. It would essentially be a game of checkers, but within the rules of Risk. If you wanted an ultimate no-chance 1v1 skillz tournament, you could have fixed drop with fixed force and fixed (or no) reserves. Of course, this can be played multi-player also.

2. The gameboard I personally envision would have an empty center (think circle, or oval). I'd try to design the continents in a way that each territory in each continent can be attacked by an equal number of enemy territories. So for instance, if a continent is 6 territories arranged in a "circle", EACH territory is adjacent to the exact number of enemy territories. In a honeycomb type of arrangement, this may mean the center is empty (otherwise, it could be done a la EM style, with the center as the "capital" that receives deployments, with the capital being the 7th territory). Again, equality/socialism being the name of game, the idea would be to try constructing the gameboard so that no particular territory within a continent is more or less vulnerable to attack. Everything is as equal as possible.

3. For territories on the "edge" (either inside or outside edges of the donut, which I guess we can call a toroid), they could wrap around, either to the other side of the circle/toroid, or to within the same "o'clock" position on the inside of the circle/toroid. So what I'm saying is, in the same way that Alaska can attack Kamchatka, the territory at 4 o'clock can attack the territory at 10 o'clock (other side of the circle), OR, in an alternative scenario, it can attack the "other" 4 o'clock position on the inside of the toroid. In any case, the point is to try to make every territory as equally accessible/vulnerable as each other, as much as is possible, and this would include edge territories as well.

That's kinda my thought process.

I'll add that Brian invited me to a game of Landrush, but I wasn't playing games at the time and didn't carefully look at that map, so I don't know if/how it may be similar to what I'm suggesting.

Regarding the Colony, everything about it seems truly ground breaking. And I say that very sincerely. But other than the space theme, and the appearance of the gameboard (honeycombs), the idea I had is almost directly opposite to what THAT game is. My thought was to simplify the gameplay. So much thought has gone into the Colony already, I really don't know what I would add to it, that others already haven't or couldn't. What has been the roadblock to realizing that game into existence?

 

[Virtuoso]

Ok here's a draft idea. Pretty simple overall. 144 territories plus 4 "permanently" neutral territories.

I'm calling it 'The Ring". Continents are all either four or six territories each (I'd prefer 6).

North-South hyperloops allow traversing from the top of the board to the bottom of the board and vice versa. East-West likewise.

The N.E.W.S. territories are neutral 2 between turns. An attack on the S territory puts the invading army on the N territory, and it is free to attack any adjacent territory. (I'm not sure if this is optimal, but at the moment I can't think of anything better)

Territories on the outside of the circle can attack the inside of the circle at the same o'clock hour, and vice versa (see diagram).

Each territory can attack all 8 territories surround it (thus, if this goes beyond draft, the territories may not be rectangles, but may become the appropriate polygon).

The examples of the commands in ORANGE (one example has 4 terts, the other 6), show that the command has half it's territories on the inside of the circle, and half on the outside. So it "loops" around.



I think this seems playable. It's symmetry will allow for a "fixed" drop playing format (combine that with a fixed force, and you have something that I don't think exists here yet at MC).

 

[Virtuoso]

Other remarks.

- The tert number is expandable (or decreasable). I believe changes should be in multiples of 24.
- The idea of the hyperloops (or bridges) is simply a means to getting quickly from one side of the board to the other. The hyperloops can be (1) eliminated, (2) directional e.g. you attack South from 5 o'clock, you exit North attacking 11 o'clock (3) entirely NEWS accessible - so entering anywhere NEWS will allow you to exit NEWS (4) limited to 3 terts, and not all 6 e.g. emerging from a hyperloop allows you to access the outer 3 rings OR the inner 3 rings.
- Instead of hyperloops, long circumferential terts can be put into each quadrant, so that an army can move around the circle quickly.

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

So should I be posting here or in the AADOMM forum?

Hi. Keep it here for now. The AADOMM forum is more for working on it in private. The public forum is where ideas start, and maps get traction. If the maps become popular enough, or more so, if there is an artist willing to take on the huge task of making the map, then we can move it to AADOMM to work on it in private. But the public forum is much better for ideas, and to get things started, and to find an artist!

 

[Virtuoso]

OK - I fixed it up with the sole objective of making it large and neutral. For this to happen, all terts have to be 4 territories large.

No hyperloops. There is a better way than hyperloops to get troops to the opposite side of the board, but that would affect the symmetricalness of the board, which defeats the main idea of the map.

The edge territories (inner and outer edges) make up a continent. Orange and purple on the map.

 

[Zorbmonkey]

Here, I made two images that might help.

1st IMAGE:
12 shells x 12 columns =144 terr
STAGGERED command version (can be aligned instead of staggered)
Allows for 2,3,4,6,8,9,12,24 players

2nd IMAGE:
10 shells x 12 columns =120 terr. ALIGNED commands (can ONLY be aligned)
Allows for 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12,24 players

I chose to make a 12x12 ring instead of a 6x24. This equalizes the average travel distance along the longitude and latitude axes and halves the max distance between two territories to 6 instead of 12. (you can get anywhere in six moves)

The little numbers on the ring indicate decent starting positions for players depending on player count.

Perhaps each 4-terr command should give you a small bonus and each complete 12-terr shell/column should give you a bigger bonus.

Not sure if you wanted it to be a conquest map like 12D or a normal map where you start with several territories...

The 144-map is slightly nicer and more equalized with movement but the 120-map has slightly better player options. Hope these help.


Zorbmonkey


EDIT: Also, our ring maps are structurally equivalent to squares/rectangles which loop around at the edges, so the map could literally just be a 12x12 square. Looks less interesting though.

 

[Virtuoso]

Does the game engine here allow for an egalitarian fixed drop start when it is numerically possible?

 

[Zorbmonkey]

12D's has a fixed drop start so I would assume it's possible, although this map would need coding of multiple drop patterns depending on player count. But it should be easily do-able. I'd like to try a map with equalised starting positions, thus my interest in this map

 

[Virtuoso]

That's great, although so far you're the only one.

I was wondering what 12D was but I guess you mean 12 Domains, and I guess it therefore is possible to have a fixed drop so that's good.

The drop pattern would basically be a matter of assigning the terts around the board sequentially, then everything would fall into place as long as the number of players is a divisor of the total number of territories. I wonder if (as another option) a "selected" territory format could be used, whereby everyone chooses their territories in a "draft" format (the way you would play Risk on a board). That would be interesting but probably only feasible in live games.

My (artistic) preference would be for a bigger opening in the middle, which would probably mean fewer rings. My thought would be to have it appear as a bit of an oval, or a circle that is tilted slightly back at the top, and slightly forward towards the bottom, so that there is the perception of depth. Think Saturn's rings or something of the sort. I don't think having equal distances in every direction, at least to me, takes precedence over the "shape" of the map I would like it to have. If there are fewer rings and therefore more terts in each quadrant, then players will be wise to try to maintain terts in opposite sides of the board.

 

[Virtuoso]

FWIW. I posted these ideas to Conquer Club, and within the hour, there was positive feedback from seemingly established and respected players.

by Mokerslag
>Great idea, i like the unique style of gameplay what you propose Will see how far this come <applause emoji> Nice job!

by gorehound
>I like this idea, well worth pursuing. Good luck with it. <applause emoji>

by ljex
>Agree that some of the drop elements need to be figured out overall but think that the concept is really cool and worth exploring.

by MGSteve
> But it seems like a decent concept so go for it.


CC has 255 maps, which is like 10X the number of maps here. But these folks still considered a fixed drop to be new concept. I'm sure there's an explanation for the disparity in interest somewhere around here.

 

[Zorbmonkey]

How about going 3D? Solves the hyperloop problem.
Now EVERY command is adjacent to EVERY OTHER command, providing ultimate map/command symmetry.
(see how the central pink command is equally adjacent to all other 26 commands)

The cube loops around from any edge or face.
For a better understanding of this and where you'll loop to, imagine infinite of these cubes stacked next to each other in all directions.

Also, this map retains all the other nice properties of the ring map:

ALL commands have the same number of territories which in turn are ALL equivalent.
ALL commands are surrounded identically by commands which are all equally distant/adjacent from the command in question.
The total number of territories (216) is still divisible by the same player counts (1,2,3,4,6,8,9,12,24)

And lastly, all territories can be reached in 3 moves or less.

 

[Virtuoso]

This looks cool. I had thought about a 3D map but I thought it would be hard to get it created with the limited space on a flat screen. I wonder how a 6x6 could be properly displayed, unless they were viewed full-frontal in a 3-columns, 2-rows of 2D squares format. The gameplay would be a 3D map but it wouldn't "look" 3D. The stacked squares you show, the posterior squares would be difficult to display well. But absolutely the gameplay would be cool. So...

- any given cube would be adjacent to the 9+9+8 = 26 cubes surrounding it?
- with continents being 8 cubes each - would be a challenge to get a command completed

If the map were to be displayed in a 3D stacked format, I think the number of terts would have to be reduced - probably to a 4x4x4 =64, which is certainly playable, but not seemingly as impressive (due to its small size). 5x5x5 = 125 would be impressively large, but it doesn't have enough divisors to be ideal. 6x6x6 would be fantastic, but I think getting it properly displayed in an aesthetic way will take some creativity. Perhaps they could be displayed in a "leaning dominos" fashion, kinda like how "windows" (operating system windows) are displayed when you scroll through them front to back (I'm not sure what keystrokes you need to push to get that effect, I only get it accidentally). But definitely, having to think in a 3D multi-layer format to eliminate opponents would be cool.

 

[Zorbmonkey]

Using hyperloops again, I made another perfect symmetry solution (all commands touch all others) but back in ring form:

It's basically the same as your design, except that in addition to the normal orthogonal movement in 8 directions, you may also choose to simply teleport 90/180/270 degrees around the ring.
You can also do both at once (eg. move 1 block east + teleport 180 degrees)

Now starting from the WHITE dot, you can reach all the BLACK dots.

This map would be easier to do I think, but the cube looks more interesting. (which is probably why I made a whole tournament based on cubes lol)

The actual cube map could be drawn bigger/differently to make the spaces more visible. I wouldn't make it full frontal as then the complete structure wouldn't look much like a cube.

 

[Virtuoso]

I like the 3D gamplay of the cube. The cube would be the place to start a 3D map, and if it works well, could be expanded to other designs.

In my opinion, I don't think the teleports above are necessary. Even without any teleports or hyperloops, it's not likely anyone will be left entirely on one tert on one side of the board (and if they are, good for them). A lot of big maps (e.g. EM) have serious travel distance from one end of the map to the other. So I don't think teleporting around the circle is necessary, or if so, perhaps a bit less than what you are suggesting. (I don't know - maybe your idea is good - it's just hard to get my head wrapped around it). My sense, would be just the 8 orthogonal attacks, and leave it at that.

But as I said, 6x6x6 would be a far more interesting game I think.

 

[riskyone]

How about going 3D? Solves the hyperloop problem.
Now EVERY command is adjacent to EVERY OTHER command, providing ultimate map/command symmetry.
(see how the central pink command is equally adjacent to all other 26 commands)

The cube loops around from any edge or face.
For a better understanding of this and where you'll loop to, imagine infinite of these cubes stacked next to each other in all directions.

Also, this map retains all the other nice properties of the ring map:

ALL commands have the same number of territories which in turn are ALL equivalent.
ALL commands are surrounded identically by commands which are all equally distant/adjacent from the command in question.
The total number of territories (216) is still divisible by the same player counts (1,2,3,4,6,8,9,12,24)

And lastly, all territories can be reached in 3 moves or less.

Zorbmonkey your graphics of the cube just light it up. Looks cool for players that want a big map.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

How about going 3D? Solves the hyperloop problem.
Now EVERY command is adjacent to EVERY OTHER command, providing ultimate map/command symmetry.
(see how the central pink command is equally adjacent to all other 26 commands)

The cube loops around from any edge or face.
For a better understanding of this and where you'll loop to, imagine infinite of these cubes stacked next to each other in all directions.

Also, this map retains all the other nice properties of the ring map:

ALL commands have the same number of territories which in turn are ALL equivalent.
ALL commands are surrounded identically by commands which are all equally distant/adjacent from the command in question.
The total number of territories (216) is still divisible by the same player counts (1,2,3,4,6,8,9,12,24)

And lastly, all territories can be reached in 3 moves or less.

Interesting thing about the cube is, you could design several different maps. A 27-cube map, or as this pic shows, 216, or you could do 54. Lots of possibilities.